The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently held that a mother-in-law asking her daughter-in-law to be perfect in doing household work would not amount to cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Single-judge Justice Dr. VRK Krupa Sagar rejected the argument that the appellant-husband and his mother subjected the deceased woman to cruelty as they often asked her to be a bit more perfect in her household work.
The Court held that “A married lady being told by her mother-in-law that she required more perfection in doing or attending household work can never be said to be cruelty or harassment among family members. Praise or comment with reference to the work that was being done is a common factor in any household. It is no one’s case that she was either abused or physically beaten for her imperfections in doing household work.”
The Court heard an appeal filed by a mother and her son, both convicted under charges of dowry death of the daughter-in-law, who died within 8 months of her marriage in April 2008.
The complainant alleged that their daughter was subjected to cruelty within 8 months of her marriage with the appellant. It was also alleged that the appellants compared the marriage ceremony and arrangements made by the bride’s family with that of the wedding celebrations of the other sons in the family.
However, the judge rejected the contention.
The Court said that “Drawing comparison for marriage celebrations or elders telling the newly married girl about the need for attending household works more efficiently is in no way connected to dowry and cruelty with reference to dowry as mentioned in Section 304-B Indian Penal Code (IPC).”
The judge further stated that mere demand for dowry by itself cannot be considered cruelty unless failure to comply with the demand is visited with cruelty. In its order, the bench noted that the material placed on record fell short to convict the appellants under charges of the dowry death.
Further, the judge observed that “If really the deceased woman was subjected to troubles, there was no occasion for her not to tell someone who was immediately available around her house.”
The bench further noted that there was never an incident of any of the accused sending away the deceased from the house nor the deceased rushing away from the matrimonial home and reaching her mother and brother complaining of any trouble to her by the accused.
The bench opined “This is indicative of the fact that it was a normal family life she was leading. Normal family life holds pains and pleasures in its life. The evidence of her parents does not show that they ever felt to enquire about the well-being of the deceased through any neighbor of the matrimonial home. That means they had no occasion to feel anything bad or suspicious.”
With these observations, the bench rejected the conviction.
